ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Gay Marriage: Arguments Against California Proposition 8

Updated on June 26, 2013

Arguments Against California Prop 8, the Same-Sex Marriage Ban

For a short time in 2008, California law allowed same-sex couples to marry. About 18,000 gay couples were legally married after the California Supreme Court made it possible, but Prop 8, a November 2008 ballot measure, revoked that right. It was passed by 52% of the voters. Since then, there has been an ongoing legal battle over the constitutionality of the ballot measure.

The California Supreme Court upheld the proposition on the grounds that voters have the right to amend the constitution, but a federal judge later declared it unconstitutional. Federal Judge Vaugh Walker, however, stayed his own ruling. Rather than allowing gay marriages to resume immediately, the judge declared that no same-sex marriages could occur until both sides had a chance to appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on February 7, 2012 that Judge Walker was correct and Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. However, the appeals court left Judge Walker's ban in place while the ruling was appealed. It is now before the US Supreme Court.

This page was created before the original vote on Prop 8 and still contains arguments against the initial ballot measure. Prop 8 was the most costly ballot measure in the country at the time it was passed, and emotions ran high on both sides of the debate. The main arguments in favor of the proposition were centered around the effects proponents said it could have on education and religion. The main arguments against it - which are presented here - were centered around equality and whether it would really have the detrimental effects on education, religion and traditional marriage that proponents predicted. This page asks you to think about the question of fairness and equality, and separation of church and state. Please read the excerpts from the California Supreme Court decision and the state Education Code and watch the related videos. Then see if you think California made the right decision.

NOTE: This page was created before the Prop 8 ballot measure was put to the voters in Nov 2008 and still contains information about the ballot fight.. But it has been updated to include information about the continuing legal battle for gay marriage in California. You'll find updates near the bottom of this page.

(Image credit: Lisa Howard)

The US Supreme Dismisses Prop 8 Case

On June 26, 2013, the US Supreme Court dismissed the Prop 8 case, opening the way for same-sex marriage to resume in California. First the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will have to lift its stay on the original 2010 decision by U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker that declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom

What the California Supreme Court said in its initial ruling legalizing same-sex marriage

Prop 8 was placed on the ballot as a backlash to the California Supreme Court's ruling in May 2008 that the state must allow same-sex marriage.

That decision angered many religious people who felt it was an assault on their values, and the majority of people who supported Prop 8 did so out of religious convictions. Many arguments fell along the lines that same-sex relationships aren't "right" because, as gay opponents like to put it, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," or "the Bible says so."

If Proposition 8 had been defeated, it would not have erased these religious views or asked anyone to stop believing them. Individuals and religious organizations would have been able to continue believing homosexuality is a sin or that same-sex marriage is wrong. But if Prop 8 is allowed to stand after all the legal arguments are finally done, the state constitution will continue to deny legal marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Ironically, at least a dozen Christian denominations already allow their clergy to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. So same-sex couples HAVE the ability to get married in a church in California or elsewhere. What they don't have in California is the ability to have that marriage recognized by either the state or federal government.

Before the election, proponents of the measure suggested that churches could be forced to perform same-sex marriages or lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse. In fact, tax-exempt status is a federal issue controlled by the IRS, not the state, and the California Supreme Court specifically addressed the issue of religious leaders being "forced" to perform gay marriages in their ruling.

From the California Supreme Court decision:

"[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

To learn more about what the Supreme Court said, you can read the official Supreme Court press release or the entire Court opinion.

"...no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices"

- from the state Supreme Court opinion legalizing same-sex marriage

Gay Marriage and the New Testament

The argument goes beyond Prop 8

The religious argument over gay marriage can't be resolved in one web page. Conservatives can point to scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 6:9 that lists those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, while liberals can point to scriptures such as Romans 14:13 and its instruction to "let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this - not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way."

For those who'd like to read more about differing viewpoints of New Testament scripture about homosexuality, you'll find some excellent essays at Religious Tolerance.org, a site that attempts to provide objective information about a variety of religions and topics of interest to the public.

Another good reference is the California Council of Churches' Marriage Equality Study Guide, which was developed as a resource for religious congregations.

The ultimate decision about whether gay marriage will be allowed in California or elsewhere will be determined by judges, as it is a legal question about legal rights, not a theological question about religious values. The law cannot and will not change religious belief systems. It can only codify the parameters around the legal relationship of two people. What will the judges consider? Here are some thought-provoking questions about same-sex marriage.

1. Should a state constitution take away existing rights? Same-sex marriage became legal in California in May 2008 and thousands of couples were able to marry for the first time. Prop 8 took away that right. Is the state constitution a place to enshrine discrimination?

2. Has legalized same-sex marriage impacted your life negatively? Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2003 and in Connecticut since November 2008. It is also legal nationwide in five countries, including Canada. So has it changed your life? Has it changed your religious beliefs or impacted your relationships? Has it made you think less of marriage in general?

3. What non-Biblical reason is there to deny legal status to couples who want to be financially and legally responsible to one another for the rest of their lives? If you can't think of a non-Biblical reason, are you comfortable allowing the Bible to be the basis of a legal right (or lack thereof)? Who determines how the Bible is interpreted? At least a dozen Jewish movements and mainstream Christian denominations already allow clergy to perform marriage or union ceremonies for same-sex couples. Why should the views of these denominations be any less valid?

4. If same-sex marriage should be denied because the Bible says it is a sin, what about other relationship sins? What about adultery? What about divorce? What about people who live together "in sin" before getting married? Should they all be denied legal marriage rights? And why is it ok to ignore some outdated ideas in the Bible - for instance, people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death and slavery is ok and beating your children is encouraged - but not others?

5. If same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry and the law doesn't recognize their relationship, if a couple who has been together 10 or 20 years is in a car accident and one of them is severely injured, who should make decisions for the injured person? Who should be allowed to visit him or her in the hospital? Who should be financially responsible if he or she can't afford the bill, but the long-time partner can? Should the state be responsible for making decisions for an adult in a committed, loving relationship because the law refuses to accept that person's relationship?

6. Ten states and the District of Columbia currently have laws that recognize same-sex relationships to varying degrees, although only five of these grant virtually equal rights to same-sex couples. However, these relationships are NOT recognized by states outside the one in which they are granted, and the federal government does not recognize these relationships at all. NO same-sex couple in this country, including those in the states with full domestic partnership/civil union rights, has the same rights as a straight married couple. Marriage for straight couples, on the other hand, is recognized by all states and the federal government. So a straight couple who is married in California can move to Kansas or Utah or West Virginia or anywhere else and have full rights. But if a same-sex couple from California is merely traveling out of state and suddenly needs emergency medical care (see question 5 above), their registered domestic partnership is not recognized at all. Do you think that's fair?

7. How does denying financial and legal rights and responsibilities to a same-sex couple advance the "sanctity of marriage"? How are financial and legal responsibilities related to religious beliefs?

8. How important is a word? Should gay couples have the same legal rights under a different name, such as civil union or domestic partnership? Or should the word "marriage" continue to be the legal term and "holy matrimony" be the religious term?

9. In Wisconsin, it is actually a crime for a same-sex couple to get legally married in another state or country where it is legal and then return home to Wisconsin. But it's not a crime in Wisconsin to have a religious marriage ceremony in that state or in any other because the couple is not entering into a legal contract. Does that make sense? Can you imagine a state telling a straight couple they can't go to Las Vegas to get married unless they want to face criminal charges when they return home?

Poll: Majority Now Favors Gay Marriage Rights

A new CNN poll finds that 49% of Americans believe gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry and have their marriage recognized by law, and 52% believe gays and lesbians should have the Constitutional right to marry. This is the first poll to show a majority of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage.

Miss California - A Song About Prop 8 - Melissa Etheridge's love affair with California dampened by Prop 8

Rocker Melissa Etheridge moved to California from Kansas when she was a young woman. But her love affair with the liberal golden state took a hit with the passage of Prop 8. "Miss California" is a track from her 2010 "Fearless Love" CD in which she laments, "Ooh, you've gone and left me for some preacher's way," and suggests, "Don't you know what's good for me can be good for you too?" Listen to a sample below.

"

What the California Supreme Court Said About Equality

Why "separate but equal" domestic partnerships are not equal

Even before the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in California, the state allowed same-sex couples to form legally binding domestic partnerships. Many people wonder why the state can't just continue to have two separate legal statuses, one for straights and one for gays. This is what the Supreme Court said in its May 2008 ruling that reiterated the idea that separate but equal is never equal.

From the Supreme Court ruling:

"While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children."

"...Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship. Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples."

Liberal Justices?

Six of the seven justices on the CA Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors

Republicans Against Prop 8 - Don't Take California Backwards

1138 Legal Marriage Rights

That's the number of federal rights, benefits and privileges granted to married couples

In 2004, the US Government Accountability Office prepared a document listing the 1,138 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges. Same-sex couples in ALL states, including those that have domestic partner laws and those in the five states that now allow same-sex marriage, are denied these rights.

TIME Magazine has an article noting how same-sex couples in committed relationships are negatively impacted by being denied these rights.

Marriage is a Legal Contract

Legal rights for having a religious marriage ceremony - 0

Federal legal rights for signing a state-sanctioned legal marriage license - 1138

Help the Budget Deficit; Legalize Gay Marriage!

Same-sex marriage is not only a financial issue for couples, but for the government as well

One of the most interesting statistics I've come across regarding the financial impact of not allowing gay marriage under federal law comes from the Congressional Budget Office:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net, (the impact of allowing same-sex marriage) would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years

The CBO may consider $1 billion to be a "small extent," as it's a small fraction of the overall federal budget, but that's still a big number. By the federal government's own analysis, keeping gay marriage illegal is costing ALL U.S. taxpayers $1 billion. Gives you something to think about, eh?

Permission to Marry

This video was made long before Proposition 8 was added to the November ballot in California, but still raises a good question.

Has Ellen DeGeneres' Marriage Affected You?

In this short clip, Ellen DeGeneres talks about getting married and encourages voters to vote no on Prop 8. About 18,000 same-sex couples like Ellen and Portia were married in California in the period between the first state Supreme Court ruling and the passage of Prop 8. Think about this - has Ellen's marriage negatively impacted your marriage and family? Prevented anyone else from marrying? Encouraged others to get divorced? Or changed your religious views?

Or did you even notice or care that she got married???

6 Arguments in Favor of Marriage Equality

A well-written blog post against Prop 8

I came across an excellent blog post on MOMocrats that gives six arguments in favor of marriage equality. These include civil rights, civil liberty, economics, freedom of choice, life cycle decisions, and separation of church and state. It's well written and worth a read.

Prop 8 and the California Education Code

What the Ed Code says about marriage

Prop 8's impact on education was one of the main issues of the campaign. The Yes on 8 campaign argued, "...schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners." (From the ProtectMarriage.com website)

They cited California Education Code Section 51890 to support this claim. However, even before the election, a judge ruled that this claim was misleading, and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction told The Chronicle, "...(legalized gay marriage) just isn't going to require any kind of teaching of personal relationships or lifestyle."

Here is what the relevant section of the code says:

51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that:

(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects:

...(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

In August 2008, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ruled that Prop 8 supporters must remove wording from their official ballot argument saying schools would be required to teach children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. The judge said the argument was false, since "...children cannot be required to attend any health-related instruction, including instruction on the subject of marriage, against their parents' will." The judge cited California Education Code Section 51240.

That section of the code says:

51240. (a) If any part of a school's instruction in health conflicts with the religious training and beliefs of a parent or guardian of a pupil, the pupil, upon written request of the parent or guardian, shall be excused from the part of the instruction that conflicts with the religious training and beliefs.

Freedom is a Republican Value - Why Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was against Prop 8

This video made by Republicans Against 8 gives reasons why Republicans who want less government interference should oppose Prop 8.

Yea or Nay on Prop 8? - Should Prop 8's ban on gay marriage be allowed to stand?

Yes or No on Proposition 8?

Yes, we need to protect traditional marriage

Yes, we need to protect traditional marriage

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • anonymous 4 years ago

      No matter what you believe, no matter what side you stand on, what is so frustrating is that the power over this decision wasn't with the people rather the government. What happened to "we the people"? Isn't the decisions made by the people supposed to have more power than a few government officials deciding? The people of California voted twice against prop 8. We should uphold the people's decision no matter what side you stand on. Even if the people would of voted for prop 8 the two times I would of respected the decision because it came from the concerned voters of the state not the few people in our state and federal government that were able to make an influence over the people because they have more power than the thousands of people who voted on prop 8. I guess what I am saying is I don't strongly stand on either side but the most frustrating part of this whole issue is that it was never the people in California's choice. I urge all of us to focus on upholding the values and rights of the people of this country based on the constitution. As our constitution states we should be able to over throw or change our government if it is not serving the people. Our founding fathers created checks and balances to make sure our government would never become to powerful. Now look, no matter where you stand decisions have been made that affect the future and the present. What's not just is that the government overrid the people, making the value of a vote diminish even more again...

    • amandascloset0 4 years ago

      Here is what I don't get. Most gays hate God altogether since the Bible itself refers to the lifestyle as an abomination. This is pretty self evident at the anger and rage displayed toward Christianity by these groups. Now, Marriage is an institution created by God, so then could someone answer me why a Gay couple who hates God or does not believe he exists would want to enter into a Holy union indorsed by God? Seems kind of like a double standard to me.

    • James M Becher 4 years ago from South Florida

      SO, I guess it comes down to whether or not you accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God, which it claims to be, which is a discussion for apologetics. Check out my lens on apologetics and others like it. But, if you do accept the Bible, then the very term "gay marriage" is an oximoron--the idea was unheard of in Bible times. The author of Hebrews, who I believe to be Paul, wrote in chapter 13 verse 4: "Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." This is the same Paul who wrote Romans, which as happynutritionist pointed out condemns homosexuality, Thus by "marriage" in Heb.13:4 he could NOT have meant gay marriage. We need to keep the definition of marriage pure for our posterity. I may end up making a whole lens on this.

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      I was writing this in a rush so please forgive me for any spelling errors like illegal is meant to be legal, again say yes and protect what we have left of a heterosexual church, now im off to work

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      God led the man who wrote the bible, we supposed to read the bible with the help of our father God only then we can understand the bible. God forbids sexual pleasures he made Adam and Eve only for the purpose of making children. If a man is with a woman prior to marriage God said do not put her away in another words do not leave her because then you will be making a sin of adoltery, when you are with another woman you will have thoughts of your ex, and same as your ex with her new partner of you. In today's society we do this constantly, but conservative christians people like protected species are few and if we do not preserve the status quo of the traditional marriage what do we have left? Some say well the animal kingdom is gay too. In Genesis God spoke to Adam and told him to teach the animals and to name them, teach? hmmm I wonder what that is, ever had a dog or a parrot they are teachable are they not? even a cat. Does it not come to your mind well hold on a minute, if we are teaching the animals does not that mean that is the reason some animals are gay? Could it be that they are copying our behavior? We humans are so far from the laws of God and we are getting further and further, more and more corrupt and more and more immoral. Sexual pleasure is a sin just like stealing, murder, rape, adolatry and all but homosexuality to be illegal?? does not make any sense. Have we lost all our common sense? Sometimes I feel like screaming at the world and saying, hello im here too, i prefer to have my child find an opposite sex partner and have children, i want to find a straight person so i can marry, every guy i meet is gay, bi or something else unatural, i can never have children of my own by the looks of things, homosexuality has so much been sensationalised by the media that it is out of control and if we let it out of control any further, we will all become extinct. Is that where the government wants to take us. Say YES to proposition 8 we want to protect heterosexual marriage and we want toilets male/female and other toilets for all others, i do not wish to be cornered any more by any lesbian who wishes to make advances towards me, the purpose in the first place to divide toilets so men do not look at woman if they wish to change, now there is the lesbian to think about or the fact that what about the guy i might marry/somedoys husband, he has to be careful that a gay guy is not having dirty thoughts about him or will rape him, imagine the impact it will have on me, maybe unisex toilets are best so that couples can look after each other while they go to the toilet. Then think about the churches, mosques etc where woman and man are separated during certain religious rutuals, eg, foot washing in some religions how would you monitor this? What an abomination, what chaos. And marriage wasn't that invented by religion, holy metrimony, bible invented it. So let the homosexuals marry but not in church, let the state marry them if they want to but religion is separate to state and should remain so. It should not impose rules on church and other groups, there are rules to every club if you don't like the rules don't join, if you breach rules you are kicked out, if you misbehave in school you are suspended or expelled so why not excommunicate church members who do not meet the church policy and why not say no to gay marriages if the religios views oppose it? Let the homosexuals open their own religions and let them perform legal marriages in their own right without any interferance from state, or other religious denominations, since we are different let us be different still,a since we cannot be with one another let us be apart. Agape and God's love to all.

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      No because my daddy tald me if i say this gay piple can mary. Dos dis mian i can mary? I am 8 and i love Garry my daddy dos not kno, now i happy if i can mary.

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      Yes, what about heterosexual rights? What about our children and the impact it will have on them? What about what we value? What about sodomy laws? What about future generations in terms of population growth? Or is it really the end of the world and none of this matters any more?

    • KeenanSteel 6 years ago

      Consider any possible argument in favor of proposition 8, and I can show you an example of how that is a double standard.

      Let's assume that it's true what some people argue, despite a lack of evidence - that children in homosexual households are less likely to be successful.

      Did you know that children of couples with low IQ are MUCH less likely to be successful? They are more likely to be criminals, have alcohol and drug problems, fail in school, and make less money. The differences are much more significant, yet you don't hear about legislation to block low-IQ parents from having children.

      This is just one example of the double standard. Prop 8 is just bigotry at its ugliest, cloaked with false motivations.

    • manndtp 6 years ago

      Yes on Prop 8. I don't think there should be "gay" marriage. To me it would be like labeling those who are African American and married as an "African American" marriage. Then again, where do we stop with who can marry who. What affect does it have on our society as a whole and How many "Christians" actually read and apply all those other passages to themselves?

    • happynutritionist 6 years ago

      My view is simple and Biblical, not political.

      I don't think Romans 1 was mentioned in the scripture section above...there's a lot about God's love for us and what He did to show that to us throughout the Bible, including earlier verses in Romans 1, but in verses 24-27 it's pretty clear how God feels about same-sex relationships...He doesn't force us to live the way He wants us to, He allows us to choose...but our choices have good, or dire consequences - the verses say "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.....

      Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion..."

      So to me it's all very simple..but I guess this would only matter to those who care about what God and the Bible has to say. To me, it makes life and knowing how to live it so much less complicated...fewer words need to be said.

      You've done a great page covering a controversial topic.

    • anonymous 7 years ago

      God made men and women to be with each other not the same sex. 2 women can not make a baby, 2 men can not make a baby. if we all went "gay" the human race would die off.

    • anonymous 7 years ago

      yes on prop 8 !

    • anonymous 8 years ago

      I SAY YES TO PROPOSITION 8

    • Alphome04 8 years ago

      Yes, we need to protect marriage. All of this debate is really null and void. The people of this state have voted and and the majority have voted for marriage between a man and a woman. The foundation of the country is based upon the majority vote. What is the problem? The people have voted! Just because Hollywood or other minorities don't like or agree with the majority is not reason for the liberal courts to make laws. That is not their job. I have more bad news for gays, the majority of the country are against same sex marriage also.

    • JanaMurray 8 years ago

      I have to disagree, the natural family is the best way to raise children. Children need to have a father and a mother, not some other variation. I a sick and tired of our children being exposed to deviant unnatural lifestyles, keep it private if you are going to behave that way. Stop spreading your disease.

    • anonymous 8 years ago

      YES , marriage is a contract or covenant with GOD as CO-CREATORS of human life. It goes back to adam and eve. Gays CANNOT claim CO-CREATOR STATUS. If prop 8 is defeated, God will continue to punish our country and our economy. Be smart, don't mess with the Almighty, BE happy with Civil Unions, and stop ^%$#ing with our Biblical Constructs!Marriage is not a RIGHT given to 2 men or 2 women or a Man and a Cow or dog. It is from GOD to A MAN and a WOMAN to Produce CHILDREN ! You have to be pretty stupid to not see that ! the rest is just whining liberals trying to legitimize a DEMONIC SEXUAL PRACTICE of Homosexuality

    No, everyone deserves equal rights

      0 of 8192 characters used
      Post Comment

      • anonymous 4 years ago

        Of course I am against prop 8. For goodness sake people are people and if you believe in God then he made gays and he loved them. Gays are not mean people they want a family and children, and no doubt there are millions of straight pervs who'll come and rape children, how many cases of gay rape have you seen. At least no one will get pregnant with their rapists child. Gays love and are we not taught that love is good. In fact marriage is a way of showing stability, monogamy, and the innocence and purity of gay love. Marriage is not about procreation. There are no laws against infertile couples or childless couples. Has it occurred to you that gays would happily adopt unwanted orphans left in orphanages. I am sure an orphan starving in china or Uganda would rather have Elton John or Ellen Degenerous as their parents and not live in an orphanage. Marriage is about eternal love and devotion. No one is asking you to abandon your beliefs, but consider people deserve to be treated with respect and love, and in this country we are all equal and deserve equal happiness and protection from the government. The government should not be able to take away the right to love and respect people and marry them. That would essentially be the equivalent of saying " no your love, happiness, and marriage don't matter and we are going to discriminate against you". Let's spread the love and not the hate. Stop discriminating and start loving.

      • Angel_Lou 5 years ago

        In short: I believe in human rights!

      • anonymous 5 years ago

        Marriage isn't in danger of being destroyed if two men or two women want to sanctify their relationship. What hurts marriage is (a) marrying on a whim (b) divorce (c) spousal abuse, etc. People, seriously. If two human beings in love want to make their relationship even more special, and they want to marry, then let them. Who does it hurt? Children seeing two people in love sharing their lives together will learn that this is what people in love do. I have news for you, students at my school are just fine with gays and lesbians (and marrying); it's parents who cause the most grief. Please don't use the Bible to defend a position, especially since people don't observe all the guidelines in the Bible. If they did, children would be stoned to death and so would anyone who chooses to see a movie with family or friends on the Sabbath. You want to help the world? Go out and teach people to be kind and loving to each other. Focus on the positive, people.

      • carolinarobin 5 years ago

        Live and let live is what I say. Gay marriages don't affect me in the least, not my child. I hate to see people pass along their closed minds to their children. Such a shame to teach them they are superior or that they have the right to judge. Love, it's all about love and love has no limitations.

      • dmoxi7 5 years ago

        ASHLEY ASHLEY..... God only created sex for procreation??!! Why on earth did God create the G Spot then???

      • ChrissLJ 5 years ago

        I'm personally appalled every state hasn't legalized same-sex marriage. Those in the LGBT community are being treated as second class citizens. It reminds me of a quote from George Orwell's allegorical novel Animal Farm... "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." As a country that prides itself on equality for all, we sure don't show it.

      • anonymous 5 years ago

        & For everybody trying to quote the Bible, just shut the f*ck up now! Bet NONE OF YOU GUYS are moral people! Everybody lives with sins, so if you guys are allowed to make sins, then let the gays and lesbians make their sins! At least they're HAPPIER than MOST opposite couples are anyway!

      • anonymous 5 years ago

        Screw all of you guys who are FOR Prop 8. You guys act like EVERYBODY is gay or lesbian. Love is not what gender you are, or who you chose to be with. Love is a a strong bond built between two people, not two opposite genders neccesarily! You can't control how you feel about someone or the emotions you have towards them, so why try to change them in who(gender) they are attracted too. If a man & woman is only granted because they're opposite sexs, & same-sexs can't then TAKE AWAY MARRIAGE FOR ALL !

      • Rose Jones 5 years ago

        Supporting gay marriage is right, fair and overdue. And besides it absolutely is supporting marriage - it does not ever, ever hurt heterosexual marriage for gay people to marry.

      • imthepoet 5 years ago

        People quote the bible as saying God does not agree with same-sex relations. But the bible was written by man and is man's interpretation of God. God never said anything such thing. Neither did Jesus. Moses wrote Leviticus. So when people say "God says man shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman," they are quoting Moses, not God.

      • anonymous 6 years ago

        It is okay for anyone to believe as a key factor in his/her religion of choice that it is wrong and is a sin to be gay. However, my right not to practice a religion is impacted deeply by this becoming a state law.

        Merely denying the state recognition of a marriage license will not stop the "unholy" acts from being done, it will only stop the passing of financial security and dignity to certain couples who desire it. Please Vote No!

      • anonymous 6 years ago

        Biblical views, as noted on the opposite side, do NOT belong in our laws. Period. And those who think they do ought to be aware of their OWN bigotry, as they demonstrate a clear bias against other faithful Christians like me who see nothing wrong with people living their lives as the people they were created to be by God, and that includes homosexual people. Let those who believe homosexual marriage is wrong believe as they will, let their churches teach what they like and let them marry only heterosexual couples - that's fine. But don't tell me and MY church who can and cannot marry. And for sure, don't tell my NATION what can and cannot be legal based on what your CHURCH says.

      • anonymous 6 years ago

        gays should be able to marry!!!

      • MagpieNest 6 years ago

        Yet another example of why the bible is a poor guide to morality. I'm anti-marriage myself, but everyone should have equal access to rights. I'd prefer a civil partnership.

      • KeenanSteel 6 years ago

        I'm sorry, I failed to select the correct side. I should be over here!

      • NarrowPathPubli 6 years ago

        The Yes on 8 supporters seem to use two main themes:

        1) The Bible says same sex relationships are wrong.

        2) The majority of voters agree that same sex marriage is wrong.

        The first is irrelevant to matters of law. Personal religious belief is not an acceptable basis for law.

        The second is also irrelevant because majorities cannot vote on whether the US Constitution applies to people they don't like or not. Majorities also believed women should not have the right to vote and blacks should not go to school with whites.

      • anonymous 7 years ago

        "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

        "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Thomas Jefferson

      • anonymous 7 years ago

        No

      • Courtney_CollinsD 7 years ago

        I feel saying people can't get married because they are the same sex is just like what American's did to the slaves or what Hitler did to the Jews. Who are we to tell people that they can't love each other or get married to the person they love just because they share the same gender? Live every day like its your last, not live every day telling people how to live their lives. So the bible is against it? Well that's fine and dandy but does anyone ever realize that not everyone in this country shares the same religious beliefs? Why does the law have to involve what the bible considers wrong? I know this is over and done with but what everyone that voted yes did was take away a couples right to marry each other out of love because people are too afraid to try understanding what's unknown or weird to them. God forbid anyone does anything that's against what's in the bible. Practice what you preach, let people do what they will, after all who are you to judge them?

      • anonymous 7 years ago

        I don't think anyone says it better than Keith Obermann... if you still believe marriage is not a right all people should have, scroll down and listen to Keith's comments on this.

        As a Canadian, I have the right and have taken this right and married my husband on the day of our 9th anniversary together. I am happy to live in a country that has given me this right and where most of the time, the majority does not decide for the minority. I think that the one who said it best in our country is our now departed Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau when he said... "I will not allow the majority decide the rights of the minority".

        Spread love, not hate...

        denis

      • jennysue19 7 years ago

        I am not Californian or even American, but I am shocked and disgusted at a decision that takes away human rights to self-determination. The law was a right and proper attempt to level the ground and allow same sex couples the right to make joint financial arrangements on a par with marriage. They were not demanding the universal right to force every church in California to conduct same sex marriages or even to give the relationship a blessing.

        France, which has a similar separation of church and state has ALWAYS had a system where the civil ceremony and any religious ceremony are totally separate which has always seemed to me to be eminently sensible and to solve a lot of problems that other countries have.

        What is the point of an American Constitution that ALLEGEDLY separates church and state when right wing religious interests in individual states can simply demand to take away rights like this and similarly refuse women the right to do what they want with their bodies if they don't want the child they are carrying.

        The writer of this lens has tried very hard to keep religious argument out of the debate and to concentrate on the constitutional principles. I am sorry to see comments here that do not respect that. Stop whingeing and interfering in what other people want to do with their lives and get on with your own. No-one's asking you to change anything you do or take away any of your rights.

      • anonymous 7 years ago

        You can't help who you falln in love with.

      • anonymous 7 years ago

        vote NO for equality for all people!

      • anonymous 7 years ago

        we shouldnt take away the rights. From reading the left side of this discussion board, i noticed "God" pop up in nearly every single argument. God is just an idea, one that you may have faith in. However, there must be separation of church and state in order for our government to function peacefully. The bible was written thousands of years ago, in a dead language that no one can interpret perfectly. Who are we to say that it was interpreted correctly in the first place. These ideals were those from 203480238409823048 years ago. Am i being blasphemous? Or is ridiculing, hating, and disrespecting another human life, a sin?

      • anonymous 7 years ago

        I see this issue a little differently, perhaps - Proposition 8 is a clear violation of the California Constitution. The California Supreme Court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and no voter referendum can single out one class of citizens and deny them court-protected rights. This case is quite clear. Proposition 8 will undoubtedly be struck down once the US Supreme Court hears the case.

        However - the current challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court concerns the constitutionality of Proposition 8, and not the issue of same-sex marriages directly. Once that issue is brought before the U.S. Supreme Court (if they decide to hear it,) I believe same sex marriages will be over-ruled. Prior case law has already determined that certain rights and protections can be afforded to one gender over the other so long as there is a clear difference in rights and/or protections needed as a result of specific gender requirements or norms. For example, even before Clinton's Marriage and Family Leave Act, the courts determined that women could not be penalized in the work place once they became pregnant. (Pregnancy used to result in an automatic discharge from the military, for example.)

        In my view, marriage is not a right - and to compare this discussion to the Civil Rights Act is an insult to the struggles against race and gender intolerance of the 1960's. The issues are in no way related. Marriage is a responsibility, not a right.

        Marriage has traditionally been established as a protection for women and children who had no power and no resources as a result of their condition. Even today, women who get pregnant must make a choice between family and career - no matter how hard they try, it is impossible to do both well at the same time. As a result, women's career paths typically diverge from their male counterparts once they decide to have kids and this sacrifice must be protected by a legal contract between two people who are committed to making these sacrifices in order to promote strong and healthy families. No matter how much people might take the view that marriage and family are separate issues - "single mothers can make it just fine", "don't have kids if you can't afford it", etc. The fact is, we would become a selfish and rotten society if we held these values over all - our primary duty as a society is to promote future generations and to grow and promote a lasting legacy. Unfortunately, the 50% divorce rate and the fact that 40% of kids born last year were born to unmarried mothers undermines somewhat this "traditional marriage" argument - time will tell whether these statistics represent a future trend or simply an historical anomaly.

        Homosexual couples who decide to have kids do not face these same issues - they're sacrifices for family are of a different kind and are made against the backdrop of two seemingly equal partners. Which half of the same-sex couple makes the greater sacrifice for children and needs short-term protection as a result? There is no reason for the legal protection afforded by marriage and therefore I think when a direct challenge to same-sex marriage protections comes before the U.S. Supreme Court, they will ultimately vote to strike down those protections.

        That doesn't mean that two people who are committed to each other's long-term health and happiness should not be celebrated by all. It's just a question of what kinds of legal hoops they must jump through in order to get those similar protections that come automatically with marriage. It also means that those homophobes who are so committed to protecting "traditional marriage" should work harder to reduce the divorce rate and decrease the single-mother birth rate.

      • anonymous 8 years ago

        people who says *Yes* on prop 8 have their reasons..but the thought behind that is, they hate gays and don't want their kids to be that way, well..you can't make a person the way you want them to be...they are who they are and....^^ *g2g*

      • anonymous 8 years ago

        wtf is prop 8

      • ShadesofGay 8 years ago

        Who someone chooses to love is not someone else's business. Look at the comments on this section. The Yes on 8 comments appear to be filled with judgmental rhetoric about how homosexuality is somehow "evil". Is this the type of thinking we want behind our laws?

        30% of suicides are LGBT related, and negative attitudes don't help that situation. Neither do laws making LGBT people second class citizens.

        If all that fails to convince you, consider this: does YOUR marriage affect the fate of the world? Neither do those of same-sex couples.

        Bottom line: making gay marriage illegal doesn't stop gay people from pursuing relationships that are right for them. You can't make someone else straight. If s/he tried to become straight, s/he would become depressed and possibly suicidal.

        Your attitudes affect people. Think about that before you condemn 10% of the population to miserable, unfair lives.

      • anonymous 8 years ago

        The definition of marriage has always been changing. Most marriages in the Old Testament spoke of multiple wives. If our interpretation of marriage does not change, then inter-racial marriages would not be legal today.

        Please do not decieve that marriage is an ever-lasting institution that has not changed at all. Marriage has always change and must continue to change for equality.

        Seperate in never equal, and you should be ashamed for denying a minority the same rights as everyone else.

      • anonymous 8 years ago

        No

      • anonymous 8 years ago

        As Dutch Atheist I think it's wrong to deny others the same rights as those who are married as man and woman.

        If it really bothers the religious people so much, can't they just call it something else but have them have the exact same pros?

      • Karen I Olsen 8 years ago from Seattle, WA USA

        I support marriage equality, along with huge numbers here in the State of Washington! I have LGBT friends who can't legally marry the person they love in this state. I am a religious progressive who says one couple's/family's love is as good as any others'...

      • anonymous 8 years ago

        Do y'all know what separation of church and state is? It's exactly what this country was founded upon. The founder's themselves weren't even Christian -- they were deists. Who is to say that the Bible is fact? Congressmen? The President? No, it's for personal interpretation, it's not to be pressed upon people.

        Everyone says a traditional family is the best way to raise a family -- how so? All that is mentioned is that it's the "best." There's never a real reason why. Not only are you integrating church and state, you're also showing yourself as sexist saying that the woman in the relationship can be a better parent than the second man.

        Grow up and stop pressing your beliefs on others. There are two men somewhere in the world getting married AS YOU READ THIS. Is your life being affected? Think about it.

      • MargoPArrowsmith 8 years ago

        It is a horrible thing. Those for it seem to think that gay people will no longer be together or raise children unless they are married. Not so.

        BTW, my Baptist Church in North Carolina started marrying gays 15 years ago.

      • calyxa 8 years ago

        As a Californian woman married to a Californian man, my husband and I believe that our marriage has been WEAKENED by the fact that the rights of our fellow compatriots in the state to marry the love of their life have been denied! Proposition 8 is discriminatory and should never have even made it to the ballot, let alone be passed. I hope the courts do the right thing and overturn it!

      • anonymous 8 years ago

        The term "marriage" needs to be change so all have equal rights! Its discriminatory, even if it goes against religion, religion and law are separated. And if gays can marry and adopt I don't believe that it will affect the child in any way, except removing the homophobia which is more of a "disease" than homosexuality. Its just like racism, don't give rights to people who are different! That's ridiculous.

      • anonymous 8 years ago

        Hell no.

      • anonymous 8 years ago

        Geesh, these Mormons are the most insecure parents I've ever seen in my life. They are so freakin' scared one of their kids (or more) is going to end up gay it really makes you wonder what is going on in their homes. Only 14% of children in the state of CA are being raised in homes with their biological parents...what should we do with the other 86% -- ship them all off to the huge waiting lines for adoptions in Utah? I had a Mormon neighbor come to my house and try to give me his stupid YesOnH8 bumper stickers last week....my wife and I have lived in this neighborhood for almost ten years, three doors down from this guy and he had no idea we were gay. So who exactly is it that is being exposed to what, may I ask. My love for my wife and my children is not a disease, your hatred is and someday 10% of your big, Mormon family is going to hate you for it. Marriage, as defined by the State of CA is a legal contract, it has nothing to do with God or Co-Creator status. I am so looking forward to the day that the evangelicals, currently riding the Mormon-money-train, dump these sorry dupes on their asses. When they do (Palin vs Romney, anyone?) -- when the "apostate church" becomes the next pariah to the Republichristians, I sure as hell hope Jana & the Photographer don't look to the progressive left for help.

      • anonymous 8 years ago

        "Protect" marriage? Are you serious? The heterosexuals of this country have already done a fine job of destroying it. Divorce rate of more than 50%. 24-hour celebrity marriages. Give me a break. There is absolutely nothing a same-sex couple could do to destroy marriage. You've already done that for us.

      It was the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage for a short time in 2008. The court declared in that initial ruling that denying same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. Ironically, however, the same court that said the state should allow gay marriages later said it would not strike down Prop 8.

      Why? You could simplify it by saying the justices were sticking with the language of the state constitution. Their 2008 ruling declared same-sex marriage should be legal because the state constitution said so. But Prop 8 amended the language of the constitution. So the appeal brought very different questions before the court.

      The day after Prop 8 passed, several legal challenges were immediately filed. According to an Associated Press article at the time, "the lawsuits raise a rare legal argument: that the ballot measure was actually a dramatic revision of the California Constitution rather than a simple amendment. A constitutional revision must first pass the Legislature before going to the voters."

      On November 10, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the challenge and to decide several issues regarding the validity of Proposition 8. The court press release said three issues would be argued and decided:

      1. Is Proposition 8 invalid because it is a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the state constitution?

      2. Does Prop 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

      3. If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

      The court also ordered an expedited briefing schedule. Oral arguments in the case were heard on March 5, 2009. Two months later, in May, the Court refused to overturn the law, saying it was a lawful amendment to the state constitution, not a revision, so they would not strike it down. However, the Court also upheld the legality of the marriages performed before Prop 8 was passed.

      Aug 2010 Update: Federal Judge Declares Prop 8 Unconstitutional

      The first federal appeal

      On August 4, 2010, the latest chapter in the Prop 8 saga was written by Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The judge concluded that the ballot measure was unconstituional.

      "Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," he wrote. "Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its Constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

      Despite the ruling, gay marriage will not resume immediately in California. The judge immediately issued a temporary stay to consider arguments about whether gay marriage should be allowed to take place while appeals continue. On August 12, he said the stay would remain in place until August 18 at 5 pm, giving opponents a chance to appeal the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court upheld the stay without comment, but scheduled an expedited hearing for December 6.

      You can read the text of Judge Walker's ruling declaring Prop 8 to be unconstitutional here on SFGate.

      Jauary 2011 Update

      Court of Appeals Waiting on CA Supreme Court for Clarification

      In the latest legal twist to the Prop 8 drama, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in December 2010 about the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The appeals court hasn't issued any rulings yet and won't until they hear from the California Supreme Court on a legal question - under California law, can the proposition's sponsor represent the people of the state of California?

      As the San Francisco Chronicle explained, "Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and ex-Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to appeal a federal judge's ruling in August that the measure unconstitutionally discriminated based on sexual orientation and gender. So the future of the case depends on whether Prop. 8's sponsor, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage, has legal standing - the right to represent the interests of the state and its voters.

      If not, the federal appeals court could uphold Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling and restore same-sex marriage in California - legalized briefly by a 2008 state Supreme Court ruling - without deciding whether Prop. 8 is constitutional."

      Read more at SFGate.

      On February 7, 2012, a three-justice panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. In the 2-1 decision, the court said, "Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California." The court, however, did not immediately lift the ban on same-sex marriage in California. The ban will remain in place while appeals are still pending. Prop. 8 proponents can now take their appeal to a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit or appeal to the US Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear the case.

      Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage

      Keith Olbermann is an American sportscaster, news anchor, and political commentator. He hosts Countdown with Keith Olbermann, an hour-long nightly news and commentary program on MSNBC. In this commentary, he asks viewers to think about love.

      Your opinions are welcome, no matter what side they may favor, so long as you present them in a polite and civil manner. Others will be deleted.

      What Do You Think? - Please share your thoughts

        0 of 8192 characters used
        Post Comment

        • Gypzeerose profile image

          Rose Jones 3 years ago

          With the legalization of gay marriage in Illinois June 1, 2014: 18 countries, 19 US States and 8 Native American nations have marriage equality. Bout time.

        • profile image

          ChristyZ 4 years ago

          It's just upsetting that people are making gay marriage into such a big deal. At the risk of being stoned or hit over the head with a bible (and yes I believe in God) I absolutely believe that being gay is natural and not a choice. I've had many gay friends who struggled for many years, tried to become straight, went to church and prayed, etc., before they could finally accept who they were and could begin enjoying life. Why shouldn't everybody have the right to marry someone they love. I'm in Ontario, Canada where gay marriage is legal but have been keeping track of the American news.

        • profile image

          ratetea 4 years ago

          I feel strongly about giving same-sex couples legal rights equal to heterosexual couples. Whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage, in my opinion, is a private religious matter. I can respect people regardless of what position they hold on the religious status of these marriages. But I think it is problematic when people try to force their religious views on others. There is no demonstrated way in which allowing same-sex partnerships can harm society, so I think it is very problematic to deny them these rights. I like Maryland's recent way of handling it, which is that they legalized same-sex marriage in civil ceremonies, but also granted religious organizations and clergy the right to choose whether or not they will perform these ceremonies, on their own. This protects the legal rights of LGBT people, while also protecting people's religious views. It's a win-win if you ask me, and I wish more states would handle it this way.

        • profile image

          anonymous 5 years ago

          ok really, i come on the site and country music plays... r you kidding me what's wrong with you i came here to read not listen to music, my oppion is this site is stupid

        • MarcoG profile image

          Marc 5 years ago from Edinburgh

          Very provocative lens. I remember that Keith Olbermann comment, kind of chilling. Everyone deserves the right to lead their life as the next person, in partnership or not. Life's too short to hate and deny someone the simple things, like marriage and equality.

        • theenchantedlan profile image

          theenchantedlan 5 years ago

          I like this lens. It shows that at least some people care for equality and the separation between religion and state.

        • profile image

          EllipticalTrainersGuide 5 years ago

          Thanks for sharing. It is a shame there is so much hate in the world.

        • greenspirit profile image

          poppy mercer 5 years ago from London

          Err...the bible also says....Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ex. 20.8-11 ; 23.12 ; 31.15 ; 34.21 · Lev. 23.3 · Deut. 5.12-14 ....I could go on....

          Crikey...you'll need to authorise a whole load of executions if you are going to base law on the old testament....

        • serendipity831 profile image

          Drake McSherry 5 years ago from Milwaukee, WI

          Thank you for sharing such a wonderfully written lens on a very important subject. I believe tolerance should be universal ,not whom you pick and choose as so many do in society. Everyone should be given the same rights. Those that want to hide behind a bible to defend their ignorance just show their true colors in the end.

        • profile image

          Kliedel 5 years ago

          No offense meant for those gays. But really our law originated from the bible and what the bible teaches should still be the basis of our living. Even at ancient times gays and lesbians have been condemned but since we are in a modern world they have been tolerated. But to every tolerance level there must be a limit- and I believe that is marriage.

        • profile image

          anonymous 5 years ago

          @Kliedel: Actually our law...or at least the law of this country abides to the constitution, which has an equal protection clause and separation of church from the state. You are not better than any other person and you are not more deserving of the right to be married. So stop acting like your making such a huge sacrifice by "tolerating them" this the 21st century after all and it's time you all got over yourself.

        • profile image

          Ricardoricardo 5 years ago

          I think it's time people put aside their prejudices and treated gay people as equal in every way. As long as people don't hurt one another they should be able to be whatever they are without fear of persecution,

        • profile image

          NaturesNurture 5 years ago

          This is an awesome lens. It hits very close to home because I have a gay daughter. We live in NY, fortunately, so she is now married and these remarkable young women, through the power of science, now have a beautiful baby boy. I still see so many people referring to homosexuality as a choice, or a lifestyle. My question to them is always the same - on what day did you get out of bed and decide to be straight? Google is your friend. Use it to research the latest research on homosexuality. Same sex marriage is a CIVIL right. Religion or willful ignorance has no part in determining our civil rights, thanks to our Consititution.

        • profile image

          anonymous 5 years ago

          This lens is wonderful support for LGBT equal marriage rights. I come from a very conservative, close-minded part of the United States, and being an open lesbian has been very difficult, especially when my partner and I have no rights and are not a legitimate couple according to the law in our home state and to most of the people living here. I recently published a similar lens about marriage equality voicing my passion on the subject as well. It is titled FREE LOVE. I hope you will check it out. It is such an important message to get across. Thank you for sharing and for the support.

        • Andy-Po profile image

          Andy 5 years ago from London, England

          Great lens about a controversial subject.

        • Gypzeerose profile image

          Rose Jones 5 years ago

          So glad that gay and lesbian people can now celebrate their Valentine's Day in an authentic, open way!

        • CruiseReady profile image

          CruiseReady 5 years ago from East Central Florida

          Interesting lens about a tricky subject.

        • CruiseReady profile image

          CruiseReady 5 years ago from East Central Florida

          Interesting lens about a tricky subject.

        • imthepoet profile image

          imthepoet 5 years ago

          Great lens. I feel much more informed on the issue now. I'm so glad Prop 8 was deemed unconstitutional. Now begins the countdown to when gay couples in California can marry again.

        • profile image

          jEsChrDs82 5 years ago

          This is a conflicting issue to me because of my religious upbringing. However, I have a strong belief in freedom of choice. I believe in equality and I'm against discrimination and I agree that denying gay marriage is a form of discrimination.

          constitution for kids

        • LisaDH profile image
          Author

          LisaDH 6 years ago

          @sheriangell: Thank you for the blessing!

        • sheriangell profile image

          sheriangell 6 years ago

          Very well done and blessed by a Culture & Society Angel today.

        • sheriangell profile image

          sheriangell 6 years ago

          Very well done and blessed by a Culture & Society Angel today.

        • best-intentions profile image

          best-intentions 6 years ago

          In my eyes, denying any two adults the choice of marriage is just as repulsive as any law that would require it. :) Thanks for taking the time to put together this lens!

          Kate

        • profile image

          yourgoldenfuture 6 years ago

          here in Germany we are also fighting about the same-sex-marriages...what is now legally possible but not really accepted...one reason for allowing it would be to give the partners their legal right of choice... no matter if we think its wrong... our constitutional laws protect the individuum... the morals is another topic...the religious views a third...

        • mich1908 profile image

          mich1908 6 years ago

          Thank you for this enlightening lense. Gay marriage is not spoken openly in my culture. It feels natural for a man and a woman to have a relationship and not otherwise. But then on the other hand, putting aside the gender issue, two human beings together in a committed relationship should not be subject to any discrimation nor denied their legal rights.

        • LisaDH profile image
          Author

          LisaDH 6 years ago

          @RuthCoffee: Not discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation is only a notion in some states. In many, you can still be denied housing or fired from your job simply for being gay. Thankfully, California is not one of those states, even if Prop 8 eventually stands and same-sex marriage is denied.

        • profile image

          manndtp 6 years ago

          If more than half of all "straight" marriages end in divorce within the first 5 years, what effect will "gay" marriages have on this. It's all a dollar and cents things to me. If they are two consenting adults with money in hand, give them a license. Then when they split up take their money again. End of story.

        • RuthCoffee profile image

          RuthCoffee 7 years ago

          What a hot topic for so many people. I'm not sure what happened to the notion that we don't discriminate based on race, gender, "sexual orientation", etc. Not allowing gay marriange is discrimination based on "sexual orientation".

        • Toolesque LM profile image

          Toolesque LM 7 years ago

          FANTASTIC Lens! Very well researched and thorough. I appreciate your thoughts and takes on the whole issue. I am one not gay person against Prop 8 among many many others. It's ridiculous and unnecessary. I have also written a shorter lens regarding this issue. Thanks for this lens I will Lensroll it!

        • LisaDH profile image
          Author

          LisaDH 7 years ago

          @anonymous: I agree that it's a very complex issue, and it would be better if both sides tried to find common ground. I appreciate your thoughtful, articulate and civil feedback.

          I personally don't understand how allowing same-sex couples to marry detracts from the word or one's religious beliefs. The point of faith is that you don't need anyone else's permission, proof or agreement to maintain your beliefs. The fact that there are atheists, agnostics and people of many different religions in the world who can all be married shouldn't (in my opinion, at least) detract in any way from a person's own private beliefs about marriage. But just because I don't understand how others feel about this word doesn't make my opinion the correct one.

          If the word is the big stumbling block to equal legal rights, I personally think it would be better to give up the word and get the rights instead. The Prop 8 challenge will probably get appealed to the US Supreme Court, and I can't see this court legalizing gay marriage by that name. My best hope is that the court will declare that there should be equal rights by any name. Having one legal standard that is valid across the entire nation (even if it's under two names) would put the issue to rest for most people.

        • profile image

          anonymous 7 years ago

          @LisaDH: Lisadh thank you for listening without judging. This is a very complex issue that both sides need to lose a little gay couples should be given the same rights, and just change the name of the union. I know this will get real ugly on both sides.

          You asked

          "Likewise, how does allowing gay couples to get "married" detract from the word?? Many cities, states and countries now allow gay marriage, and I don't see how it has affected the "sanctity of marriage."

          The problem is it dose take away from the meaning of ones religious belief in the sacredness of marriage. I could quote many passages from almost any modern religion where god explained about marriage.

          Now about laws concerning gay marriages

          Defense of Marriage Act

          U.S.C. § 7 : US Code - Section 7: Definition of "marriage" and "spouse"

          Now if the gay community believes they are not receiving the same freedoms and rights then that is what they need to fight for not a word.

        • LisaDH profile image
          Author

          LisaDH 7 years ago

          @anonymous: Dave, thanks for your comments. I've built this entire lens in favor of gay "marriage," but honestly, I have no problem with calling it something else. The funny thing about this entire argument is that one side is arguing about legal rights and one side is arguing about the meaning of a word.

          If every state allowed civil unions or domestic partnerships or some other form of gay "marriage" and those rights were portable from state to state and recognized by the federal government, I think there would be a lot less fighting over the word. Yes, some people would still want it and some people would still fight against it, but everyone would have the same rights. And that, in my mind, is more important.

          Under racial segregation laws, blacks and whites had to drink from separate water fountains, go to separate schools and sit in different parts of the bus. But a marriage license is a one-time thing. You get the license and the corresponding rights and responsibilities, but if you're sitting on a bus or drinking from a water fountain, it doesn't matter if you're married, single or in a legally sanctioned same-sex union by whatever name. Having the same legal rights under different names doesn't affect your daily living like racial segregation laws did.

          Yes, it might still be discriminatory to call it something else, but I'd rather have the legal rights than the word. Anyone - gay or straight - can walk into an LGBT-friendly church and get "married" in a "marriage" ceremony. But if the law doesn't recognize that ceremony, what good does the word do you?

          Likewise, how does allowing gay couples to get "married" detract from the word?? Many cities, states and countries now allow gay marriage, and I don't see how it has affected the "sanctity of marriage."

          The bottom line in my book is that any two consenting adults in a committed relationship should have the opportunity to be protected by and responsible to the same legal rights.

        • profile image

          anonymous 7 years ago

          For those who don't know marriage was first a religious union demonstrating the couples commitment to each other and god. It hasn't been until recent years that society has taken god out of the commitment. Personally I agree with Prop 8, but that's not because i want to deny any rights to gay couples it is because of the sacredness that word once meant. I do agree our society has forgotten the true meaning behind the word marriage and the commitment behind it. I believe people fight so hard for prop 8 to remember that it is a religious ceremony. I don't however believe it deals with segregation. I believe the people are protecting the word and term. Now that being said i do not believe anyone would have a problem giving the legal rights of marriage to a gay couple, but they don't want to lose that term and the sacredness of it.

        • Kylyssa profile image

          Kylyssa Shay 8 years ago from Overlooking a meadow near Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA

          Thank you for this lens! I imagine our grandchildren will look back at this legislation with the same disgust and shame as we feel about the anti-miscegenation laws or segregation. Separate but equal is anything but. Equality comes only from fairness and when one group of people is treated unfairly there is equality for none.

        • profile image

          ShadesofGay 8 years ago

          Thank you for this comprehensive lens. I hope that those who are against legalizing LGBT marriage read with an open mind and heart... discrimination is part of the reason that so many LGBT people kill themselves, and I have a hard time understanding how people can sanction such things.

          5*.

        • LisaDH profile image
          Author

          LisaDH 8 years ago

          [in reply to LairMistress] Thanks for giving an update on what's happening in Washington!

        • LairMistress profile image

          Karen I Olsen 8 years ago from Seattle, WA USA

          Hi from Seattle! Great lens! Our state legislature is working on a measure granting most of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples, without calling their commitments "marriage". Of course, religious right types don't like this one, either (ours is the region currently afflicted with Ken Hutcherson and Joe Fuiten). It's becoming known as something like the "marriage in all but name" measure. Kind of confusing, though well-intentioned. Anyway, here's to Prop 8 being tossed out shortly! Despair not, nor surrender

        • MargoPArrowsmith profile image

          MargoPArrowsmith 8 years ago

          This is a comprehensive lens. Beautifully done.

          My Baptist Church has been doing ceremonies for years. When we started some people were afraid that it would keep straights from the church or worse that young families with kids would leave. Since we started doing it the church has flourished. We have straights and gays together on Sunday morning and throughout the week. And the population of young families with kids has multiplied.

          It is odd that some people are in favor of civil unions but not weddings. That is turned around. Gays can have weddings and get married, its the civil laws that they can't have.

          ***** and I would give more if I could.

        • profile image

          anonymous 8 years ago

          The anti-Obama tirade can be heard every day on talk radio. There's no way to reason with that kind of thinking. I don't live in Calif., but I would have voted no. I have bigger concerns than a definition of marriage. Thanks for having the nerve to create this.

        • LisaDH profile image
          Author

          LisaDH 8 years ago

          [in reply to ThePhotographer] I'm not sure why this page on Proposition 8 has led to your opinions about Senator Obama, but even if he were a Muslim (which he's not), should that matter? I've known many fine Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians and people of many faiths, and those labels shouldn't matter nearly as much as their words and actions. All faiths teach love and tolerance. But not all people practice these values.

        • profile image

          anonymous 8 years ago

          [in reply to ThePhotographer] I'm ashamed to be in the same profession as you. The current administration has NOT been in our best interests. At all. Nor the world's. Obama's not a moron, he's a man of character, integrity, and he WILL change the world! And I'm with him. I'm also against discrimination for our brothers and sisters. We are ALL EQUAL. No exceptions.

        • profile image

          anonymous 8 years ago

          [in reply to ThePhotographer] I'm ashamed to be in the same profession as you. The current administration has NOT been in our best interests. At all. Nor the world's. Obama's not a moron, he's a man of character, integrity, and he WILL change the world! And I'm with him. I'm also against discrimination for our brothers and sisters. We are ALL EQUAL. No exceptions.

        • profile image

          anonymous 8 years ago

          Yeah you moron, time for a Christian Country to go Socialist? That's a big change, how about if Obama gets removed by some stupid racist kkk member, then we will end up with Biden as president...That doesn't worry you? Wake up, Big Government IS nOT in Your Best Interest. It didn't work in Russia, Its not working in China and The fact that OBAMA is a muslim, means that the next stop on the "TOLERANCE TOUR" is the enactment of Sharia Law in the US ! That will really ruin your optimistic outlook wouldn't it. The dissolution of the constitution and the US joining with the EU as a major player! SO you think our freedoms are still intact? wait until the religious persecution starts a race war under Obamas rule. Since he wants to pull out of all muslim countries, and STOP the fight against Radical ISlam, just wait until the AlQuedas of the world regroup against us in retaliation for Iraq. The twin towers destruction was only a start, OBAMA is a SCARY CHOICE, Im not voting for that MORON!

        • californianative profile image

          californianative 8 years ago

          It's good to let people read the actual language of the court decision and the Education Code so they can make their own judgments about what Prop 8 proponents are saying.